1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Hayesah bas Yisrael, Nifselah min ha'Kehunah'. It is indeed obvious that a Zonah is Pasul from Kehunah - the Tana inserts it however, because he wants to add 'u'bas Levi min ha'Ma'aser', which is not so obvious.

(b)We learn in a Beraisa that if a bas Levi is captured or commits an immoral act (e.g. with an Eved or an Akum) - we feed her Ma'aser.

(c)This is not a contradiction to our Mishnah, where she is invalidated from eating Ma'aser - because there, the prohibition takes the form of a Kenas (conforming with the various other penalties contained there).

(d)Despite having already taught us that a bas Levi is forbidden to eat Ma'aser, the Tana nevertheless needs to add that a bas Kohen is forbidden to eat Terumah - because it incorporates even Terumah d'Rabanan.

2)

(a)It is not necessary for the Tana to inform us that her children do not inherit her Kesubah - because it is obvious that her children cannot inherit what she herself is not entitled to receive.

(b)In fact, he is referring to Kesubas Bnin Dichrin - a Takanas Chachamim that in the event of their mother dying before their father, the sons that she bore from him will inherit their mother's Kesubah.

(c)The reason that Chazal instituted it is to encourage a man to give a generous dowry to his daughters, since he now knows that the money that he gives her will remain with her children and not go over to the children of his son-in-law's from another wife.

(d)The Tana finds it necessary to inform us that her sons from her first husband do not inherit 'Kesubas B'in Dichrin' - because we would otherwise have thought that Chazal penalized her, but not her children.

3)

(a)According to Rav Huna, each later Tana in our Mishnah agrees with the Tana'im that precede him. Rebbi Shimon, who permits even Yibum, concedes to Rebbi Elazar that her husband receives her findings, what she produces and that he may nullify her vows, but Rebbi Elazar will not concede that she may perform Yibum - because if Chazal did not penalize her monetarily, they certainly did penalize her with regard to Bi'ah (which is the root of the sin).

(b)And they will both agree with Rebbi Yosi, who says that she receives her Kesubah from her first husband, but Rebbi Yosi will not agree with them - because it is only in connection with the Kesubah, which heralds her leaving the marriage, that Chazal did not penalize her, but not when it comes to Bi'ah and her findings etc., which the various parties receive whilst she still remains married (a status that we want to change).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan maintains that it is the former Tana who agrees with the later ones, but not the reverse. Rebbi Yosi agrees with Rebbi Elazar but not vice-versa - because it is only the findings and what she produces that Chazal did not decree, because it concerns what she gives him, but when it comes to the Kesubah, which he gives her, they did.

(d)And they will both agree with Rebbi Shimon, but not vice-versa - because in his opinion, it is only in connection with the Bi'ah of the Yavam, which takes place after her husband's death, that Chazal did not decree, but all the other things, that take place in his lifetime, they did.

4)

(a)When Rav Huna Amar Rav ruled with regard to the Mishnah ('v'Im Nises she'Lo bi'Reshus, Muteres Lachzor Lo') 'Hachi Hilchesa' - Rav Nachman asked him why he did not clearly state that he ruled like Rebbi Shimon (the author of this statement).

(b)Rav Nachman dismissed the suggestion that Rav Huna issued his statement to preclude the possible misconception that he was ruling like Rebbi Shimon's first statement too (permitting even Yibum) on the grounds that - if that is so, he should have said 'Halachah k'Rebbi Shimon ba'Acharonah'.

(c)Rav Sheshes, on the other hand, accused Rav of having issued this ruling in his sleep - because 'Halachah ... ' implies that someone argues with him. And how can anybody argue with this ruling, seeing as she is a total O'nes.

5)

(a)Rav Sheshes supports his previous statement with a Beraisa which says 'Kol Arayos she'Amru Ein Tzerichos Heimenu Get Chutz me'Eshes Ish she'Nises al-pi Beis-Din', from which we can infer 'al-pi Beis-Din d'Ba'i Gita, Ha al-pi Eidim, Lo Ba'i Gita'. So we see that even the Rabanan agree - that when there are two witnesses, no Get is required, and she is permitted to return to her husband (see Tosfos DH 'al-pi').

(b)He thought that the author of the author cannot be Rebbi Shimon - because according to Rebbi Shimon, even if she marries al-pi Beis-Din, no Get is required (as we shall soon see).

(c)Rebbi Shimon says in a Beraisa - 'Asu Beis-Din b'Hora'asan k'Zadon Ish b'Ishah; al-pi Eidim k'Shigegas Ish b'Ishah. Idi v'Idi Lo Ba'i Get'.

(d)We emend this Beraisa to read - 'Asu Beis-Din b'Hora'asan k'Kavanas Ish b'Ishah u'ba'i Get; al-pi Eidim k'she'Lo b'Kavanas Ish b'Ishah, v'Lo Ba'i Gita. Consequently, we can establish the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon (thereby refuting Rav Sheshes' proof).

6)

(a)Rav Ashi reinstates the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon like we learned it originally, only not in connection with giving a Get, but in connection with the Isur (though in both cases, she will require a Get, not like Rav Sheshes [as we just explained]). Ravina explains it in connection with bringing a Korban: 'Asu Beis-Din b'Hora'asan k'Zadon Ish b'Ishah v'Lo Masya Korban; al-pi Eidim, k'Shigegas Ish b'Ishah, u'Masya Korban.

(b)Rebbi Shimon exempts her from a Korban in the Reisha - because a Yachid who acted on the ruling of the Beis-Din is Patur from a Korban.

(c)We finally emend the Beraisa to read - 'Kol Arayos she'Amru Ein Tzerichos Heimenu Get Chutz me'Eshes Ish ve'she'Nises al-pi Beis-Din', proving Rav Huna Amar Rav (as well as Rav Sheshes) wrong.

7)

(a)Ula queries what we just said from a Mishnah in Gitin. The Mishnah rules that - if a Get is written with the date of a different kingdom (other than the one where the man and the woman live), the wrong era or the wrong location - and the woman uses it to marry again she must leave both men, and all the Chumros listed in our Mishnah apply to her too.

(b)Rome is referred to as Malchus she'Einah Hogenes - because it did not have its own script or its own language (both were taken from Greek and other sources).

(c)We try to prove from there - that we do not absolve the woman even when there is nothing that she could have done about it (a Kashya on Rav Sheshes).

(d)We refute Ula's proof from there due to the fact - that she could (and should) in fact, have read the Get (in front of a Chacham) before remarrying.

8)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Ashi and Abaye query Rav Sheshes from the Mishnah in Gitin. The Tana there rules that if ...

1. ...a Yavam performed Yibum with his Yevamah, Rachel, and after the Tzarah got married, Rachel was found to be an Aylonis - all the Dinim of our Mishnah apply to the Tzarah. And he issues the same ruling in a case where ...

2. ... an Ervah is found to be an Aylonis, after the Tzarah got married.

(b)We resolve Rav Shimi bar Ashi Kashya on Rav Sheshes from the first case and Abaye's Kashya from the second on the grounds that - there too, she should have waited (presumably, until her Tzarah turns twenty and her status becomes clarified (though it is unclear why she should need to wait, bearing in mind that the majority of women are not Ayloniyos [see Tosfos Yeshanim]).

(c)The Tzaras Ervah of an Aylonis is not Patur from Yibum - because the Kidushin of an Aylonis turns out to have been a mistake (a Mekach Ta'us), in which case she is no longer a Tzaras Ervah.

9)

(a)Rava Rav Ashi and Ravina respectively, all query Rav Sheshes from different sections of the Mishnah there, which issues the same ruling in a case where the woman marries on the basis of a Get where the Sofer a. got mixed up and gave the Get to the man and the receipt to the woman, which they then exchanged, b. changed the name either of the man or the woman or of either of their cities of domicile, c. issued the woman a Get Kere'ach - is a special Get (called a Get Mekushar) whose knotted stitches exceed the witnesses, which is therefore Pasul.

(b)We dismiss Rava's Kashya from a., Rav Ashi's Kashya from b., and Ravina's Kashya from c. with one stroke - in that the woman should have read the Get (as we explained earlier).

10)

(a)Rav Papa wanted to permit a woman who had married on the basis of two witnesses to return to her husband upon his return (like Rav Sheshes). But Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua asked him - from all the Mishnayos in Gitin which we just cited, to prove that we do not accept the argument 'What could she have done?'

(b)When Rav Papa pointed out to him that we refuted all those disproofs from Gitin - he retorted that we cannot rely on such forced answers.

11)

(a)When Rav Ashi (who clearly supports the opinion of Rav Huna B'rei d'Rav Yehoshua) said 'u'le'Kala Lo Chaishinan' - he meant that if her husband did not actually arrive on the scene, but after she remarried, a rumor began to spread that he was alive, we ignore it.

(b)We initially think that Rav Ashi cannot be referring to a rumour that began after she remarried - since he has already issued this same ruling on another occasion.

(c)We answer that he nevertheless saw fit to repeat it here - because this rumor is substantiated by the fact that she only became permitted after Beis-Din permitted her to do so (creating the impression that there is a Safek), and we may have thought that the two factors combine to forbid her to remain with the second man (like a rumor that takes place before she marries).